Main Navigation

Nice smackdown ruling by Judge Easterbrook. For a 6 page intro to antitrust pricing law via discussion of the GPL, go read. (Yes, he does make a fundamental error about selling GPL’d software in the first paragraph or so, but otherwise, sound.)

All of Crosbie’s posts deleted until he can explain the difference between freedom of public political speech and privately hosted apolitical speech. –Ed., who is mostly doing Crosbie a favor by preventing him from embarassing himself in public.

Secondly, sticking my foot in my mouth demonstrates my humanity – which is a good thing in my book.

Thirdly, I always assume bloggers such as yourself are keen for people to express their own opinions rather than say what they think the blogger wants to hear.

Fourthly, I hope you’ve not mistaken anything I’ve written as a claim that I may demand you publish anything I post to your comment submission form. Perhaps, I’ve made a lighthearted jibe at your editorial policy, however. ;-)

Fifthly, I can see you have an editorial policy and you’re not scared to use it.

Sixthly, I’m delighted to have this conversation with you and the attention of your immediate consideration concerning whether my words merit publication.

I think I’d read a lot more of the brother if he weren’t so openly sexist (or at least, didn’t try to appeal to his readers that way). Cheerleaders don’t run on the field during the football game, and they shouldn’t show up in the middle of ESPN columns either. If I want naked or nearly naked women on the internet, I know how to find them.

“neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge”

“any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted the GPL”

How can you maintain confidence in a judgement (even though you like it) if the judge is not fully informed concerning the difference between an assurance of liberty and a restraint of trade?

There is probably some special term (possibly lexa sinusest) that applies to a case where some of the facts are in error, yet because all the sideline judges have an opinion that the judgement would be the same even if the errors were rectified, they let it stand because they don’t want to embarass to the old bluffer.